Latest news with #CorporateEnforcement
Irish Times
09-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Leslie Buckley and Denis O'Brien try to rewrite history over INM data breach saga
The decision of the Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) not to bring any enforcement action on foot of its six-year long investigation into data breaches and other issues at Independent News and Media (INM) has drawn a predictable response from Denis O'Brien and Leslie Buckley . O'Brien was the largest shareholder in INM – now Mediahuis Ireland – and Buckley was the chairman at the time of the data breaches which were revealed after the company's chief executive Robert Pitt and chief financial officer Ryan Preston made protected disclosures to the CEA's predecessor – the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). They raised several issues that concerned them about Buckley's stewardship of the media organisation. O'Brien and Buckley have seized on the decision not to prosecute – disclosed in the authority's annual report last week and a year after High Court inspectors appointed to investigate the issues raised by Pitt and Preston found no breach of company law – to wholeheartedly rubbish the CEA and its chief executive Ian Drennan. Buckley said there were 'serious questions' over the way the investigation was conducted by the ODCE including seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors in 2018. He said that the ODCE adopted 'a highly questionable approach, to say the least', in not meeting him before seeking the appointment. READ MORE 'The taxpayer could have been saved in excess of €5.6 million and €40 million overall in legal costs,' according to Buckley. [ Enforcement authority's costly INM probe leaves unanswered questions Opens in new window ] O'Brien took a similar line saying: 'Mr Drennan's conduct showed little respect for due process, proper procedures or basic objectivity. As a result, he inflicted and facilitated very significant reputational damage for several individuals over six years.' History tends to be written by the victors and Buckley and O'Brien are both entitled to put their spin on the decision not to prosecute. They would be foolish not to take the opportunity when it presented itself. But some facts are worth remembering, not least that Buckley welcomed the appointment of the High Court inspectors in 2018. 'I welcome the opportunity to vindicate my good name through the inspection process,' said Buckley in a statement at the time. 'I intend to robustly defend myself against each and every allegation. I continue to reserve my position.' It was open to Buckley – who had stepped down as chairman of INM at that stage – to challenge the appointment on the basis of what he now describes as the 'highly questionable' decision not to talk to him first. But he didn't. INM did challenge the appointment robustly saying that it was unnecessary and damaging. They lost. The Judge in the case – Peter Kelly – concluded that Drennan and the ODCE had met six of the 10 criteria necessary for the appointment of an inspector. It was a slam dunk and INM decided not to appeal the decision. [ Leslie Buckley questions way that corporate enforcer investigated INM saga Opens in new window ] O'Brien was not a party to the proceedings, but he, too, could presumably have objected to what he now describes as Drennan's lack of 'due process, proper procedures or basic objectivity'. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, Buckley may regret his decision not to oppose the appointment but last week's more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone and why-didn't-you-just-come-and-talk-to-me-first spiel doesn't really fly six years later. What does hold up is the report of the two inspectors appointed to the company by the High Court, Seán Gillane SC and Richard Fleck CBE, which upheld Pitt and Preston's version of events and was highly critical of Buckley. They found that he was in breach of his responsibilities as a director, but crucially they concluded his actions were not done to prefer the interests of O'Brien over the other shareholders in the company including businessman Dermot Desmond. They found that Buckley failed to tell the board that Island Capital – O'Brien's personal investment company – had been engaged to advise on the sale of INM's Australian interest and was in line for a €4 million payout. Not disclosing this was 'was inconsistent with his responsibility as a director to disclose material facts', according to the inspectors. The payment was not made in the end. They also found that Buckley should not have involved himself to the extent that he did in the proposed purchase of the radio station Newstalk from O'Brien by INM. That transaction did not go through either. With regard to the extensive external trawls of INM's emails organised by Buckley in 2016 that were the central to the inspectors' investigation, their report concluded; 'It is clear that Mr Buckley's disclosure of confidential information to Mr O'Brien after August 2016 was not in compliance with the company's policies and, in particular, the terms of the memorandum [not to disclose confidential INM information] that he signed,' they said. The report found that O'Brien did not misuse the information provided to him by Buckley. They also concluded Buckley did not break company law. This finding ensured that no criminal proceedings against Buckley were likely to ensue and last week's low-key announcement to that effect by the CEA was inevitable as was the twist put on it by Buckley. It might have been a better idea to keep the head down and take the win.
Irish Times
06-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Power struggle in corporate watchdog led to garda roles not being filled
The Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA), which is responsible for enforcing company law, refused to fill vacant garda roles in the body in a dispute over the powers of its chief executive, Ian Drennan. Mr Drennan also sought the outward transfer of four gardaí previously seconded to the authority. He said 'fresh ideas, perspectives and experience' were needed and that replacement gardaí will be assigned in due course. The chief executive provided details of the dispute in the CEA's annual report which was published this week. It is the first time he has publicly commented on tensions within the CEA which have led to allegations of a toxic work environment in the organisation. Mr Drennan said, during 2024, the CEA experienced 'an unprecedented unwillingness to accept decisions, as well as difficulty in obtaining information, explanations, and clarifications sought in respect of criminal enforcement activity.' READ MORE He did not specify to whom he was referring, but referenced disputes over the CEA's entitlement to oversee officers' work and arguments regarding the 'true nature' of secondments of gardaí. One of the key areas in dispute was whether seconded gardaí are subject to CEA supervision and oversight, he said. Dealing with these arguments, which Mr Drennan called a significant distraction, led to financial expense and absorbed 'considerable senior management time' during the year, he said. The chief executive said if arguments over the CEA's power were advanced to their logical conclusion, it might have to 'completely cease its criminal enforcement activity pending, potentially very significant, legislative amendment'. As a result, the CEA decided to 'temporarily defer' the filling of vacant garda roles in the authority in October 2024. There are normally 16 gardaí seconded to the CEA, but this number has been depleted recently due to retirements and transfers. Mr Drennan said it was later determined these arguments did not reflect the statutory regime underpinning the CEA. In early 2025, it recommenced engagement with the Garda regarding vacancies. Regarding gardaí assigned to the CEA whose secondments were rescinded, Mr Drennan said as a growing organisation, the authority must 'renew its criminal investigative capabilities'. 'In particular, it is important that the organisation's criminal investigative complement periodically benefit from fresh ideas, perspectives and experience.' He said in this context, he requested Garda Commissioner Drew Harris 'to rescind the secondments of four secondees'. New gardaí will be assigned in due course, 'through a combination of both temporary transfer and through competitive processes', he said. The four seconded gardaí objected to the move and were represented in talks with management by the Garda Representative Association (GRA), it is understood. A least one civilian staff member has also this year lodged a case with the Workplace Relations Commission over their work conditions. In a meeting with Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke last March, Mr Drennan said a cultural audit of the organisation was to take place as part of a new strategy. The audit will be carried out by an outside body. The ODCE was rebranded as the CEA in 2022 following significant public criticism over its handling of the prosecution of former Anglo Irish Bank chief executive and chairman Seán FitzPatrick. The late banker was accused of misleading Anglo's auditors about millions of euro worth of loans during the banking crisis. In 2017, following a 126-day trial, all charges were dropped on the direction of the court. The judge criticised the ODCE's handling of the case and said its inquiries had fallen short of the unbiased, impartial, balanced investigation to which the accused was entitled.
Irish Times
05-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Denis O'Brien says it is time to question ‘conduct' of corporate enforcement chief
Businessman Denis O'Brien has criticised the State's business law watchdog over the years-long Independent News & Media (INM) investigation, saying the time had come to question the 'role and conduct' of Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) chief executive Ian Drennan . Mr O'Brien was INM's main shareholder when it was rocked by turmoil over an unlawful breach of company data relating to 19 named individuals, among them journalists and former company officials, some of whom had come into conflict with him. The disruption in INM, Ireland's largest newspaper business, led to its sale in 2019 to Belgian group Mediahuis. That deal crystallised a loss exceeding €450 million for Mr O'Brien on his INM investment. Mr Drennan ran the CEA's predecessor, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, when it asked the High Court in 2018 to send inspectors into the company. READ MORE In a statement, Mr O'Brien said: 'Mr Drennan's failure to engage in due process and interview all relevant parties before heading to the High Court in 2018 in undue and irrational haste calls into question his continued suitability for the position. 'Mr Drennan's conduct showed little respect for due process, proper procedures or basic objectivity. As a result, he inflicted and facilitated very significant reputational damage for several individuals over six years.' [ Leslie Buckley questions way that corporate enforcer investigated INM saga Opens in new window ] Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke , who has political responsibility for the CEA, had no comment on Mr O'Brien's remarks, citing CEA independence of the Government in its work. Asked whether Mr Burke had confidence in Mr Drennan, his department said: 'Yes. The Minister has confidence in Ian Drennan as the sole appointed member of the CEA.' Mr O'Brien was responding to the CEA decision not to take enforcement action over the data breach. The decision was set out on Thursday in its 2024 annual report. How the wealthy are buying up land to avoid inheritance tax Listen | 22:03 That followed on from a report 12 months ago by court inspectors who found after a six-year investigation that INM affairs were not conducted in breach of the Companies Acts. Still, inspectors Seán Gillane SC and UK solicitor Richard Fleck reported 'technical' breaches of the Data Protection Acts. They also found inside information was disclosed to Mr O'Brien by Leslie Buckley, the long-time ally who represented his interests as INM chairman. Mr O'Brien said: 'Mr Drennan took a deliberate decision not to engage with or interview several parties, including myself, who could have provided him with answers to his questions and saved the State and other parties in excess of €40 million. 'His failure to make any reference to this element of the debacle in the annual report speaks for itself.' There was no response from Mr Drennan's office to Mr O'Brien's statement by the close of business on Friday evening. Mr Buckley, the former INM chairman, had criticised Mr Drennan in similar terms on Thursday. Responding on Friday to Mr Buckley, the CEA said: 'As detailed in the annual report, the application to the High Court in this case followed a lengthy investigation and, despite being robustly resisted by the company, satisfied the High Court that the evidential threshold necessary to warrant the appointment of court-appointed inspectors had been fully met and the court's jurisdiction engaged.'
Irish Times
05-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Enforcement authority's costly INM probe leaves unanswered questions
Ian Drennan, chief executive of the Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) , is facing an onslaught of criticism from businessman Denis O'Brien and his ally Leslie Buckley over the Independent News & Media (INM) saga. O'Brien was formerly INM's main shareholder and Buckley represented his interests as chairman. On Thursday, Drennan said no enforcement action will be taken on foot of a High Court report on INM one year ago. Inspectors found a major data breach in INM, now Mediahuis Ireland, did not violate company law. Enforcement action was never going to follow that. But the CEA waited 12 months to say it. Although the inspection cost the State €5.82 million, O'Brien and Buckley said all-party costs came to €40 million. These are enormous sums. [ Leslie Buckley questions way that corporate enforcer investigated INM saga Opens in new window ] Drennan ran the CEA's predecessor – the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) – when it went to the High Court in 2018 seeking an inspection. At issue was alarming evidence of a covert 'data interrogation' on emails relating to 19 people within and outside INM, some of whom had come into conflict with O'Brien. An avalanche of litigation followed. READ MORE But for all the disquiet and concern, court inspectors said it would not be appropriate to 'speculate' on how the 19 names were included. That left the biggest question of all dangling. The INM-19, as the victims became known, are no closer to finding out why they were pulled into the web than at the outset. This remains the most disturbing aspect of the affair. Now the backlash against Drennan has begun. O'Brien has attacked him, as has Buckley. They separately say his original investigation was severely flawed because all parties – themselves included – were not interviewed before he went to court. 'Mr Drennan's conduct showed little respect for due process, proper procedures or basic objectivity,' said O'Brien, questioning his suitability for the CEA role. The CEA chief bet the ranch on this investigation. Now he has quietly closed the file. Does Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke have confidence in Drennan? 'Yes,' said Burke's department. But this has been a costly business for all concerned.
